Footer Stay Connected

Study Finds Organic Milk is Healthier

In the latest issue of the Journal of Dairy Science, a new study funded by the European Union compared the fat composition of retail milk produced through conventional methods and milk produced using an organic approach. The findings suggest that organic milk provides greater health benefits to humans than ordinary milk.

Specifically, the study indicated that organic milk has much higher concentrations of beneficial and nutritionally desirable fatty acids than milk from conventional production systems. Additionally, organic milk was found to contain lower levels of harmful saturated fat. Although the overall fat content was similar in both types of milk tested, the organic milk showed evidence of more “healthy” fats.

The earlier studies suggested that fatty acid and antioxidant profiles of milk from cows under organic management differ from those produced by cows under conventional management in the United Kingdom (UK) and elsewhere in Europe. However, those earlier studies were derived solely from farm-based studies.

In explaining the importance of further research, Gillian Butler, project leader of the study, remarked, “We wanted to check if what we found on farms also applies to milk available in the shops.”

The team began its research by collecting as many brands as possible of whole, fresh milk available in supermarkets and other retail outlets in northeast England between August 2006 and January 2008. Out of 124 milk types purchased, 88 samples from 22 brands, 12 from conventional production and 10 organic, were analyzed during the course of the study. The samples represented milk produced in both summer and winter seasons.

In addition to discovering the significant disparities between the fat composition of organic and conventional milk, the Newcastle University researchers reported other surprising conclusions.

Interestingly, the study evidenced an unsuspected correlation between milk quality and climate. The results revealed that samples of non-organic milk collected during a particularly wet and cool UK summer and the following winter had a detrimental effect on the quality of the milk. According to the study, non-organic milk samples collected during a very poor UK summer had significantly higher saturated fat content and far less beneficial fatty acids than in a more “normal” year.

Importantly, however, researchers found that the samples of supermarket organic milk demonstrated higher levels of nutritionally beneficial fatty acids compared with “ordinary” milk, regardless of the time of year or weather conditions.

In the previous study, which sampled milk directly from 25 various farms, it had been reported that greater health benefits were seen only during the summer months. However, this most recent Newcastle University study shows that those health benefits of organic milk are, in fact, present all year round, making it an overall healthier option.

Butler proffered that the considerable differences between organic and conventional milk are largely due to conventional farms’ lower reliance on grazing and overuse of nitrogen fertilizers, which often suppress the growth of nutrient-dense clover.

As reported by Newcastle University’s Press Office, “Organic dairying standards prescribe a reliance on forage, especially grazing, and, in the absence of nitrogen fertilizer, tend to encourage swards of red and white clover, which have been shown to alter the fatty acid intake and composition of milk.”

Remarking on the group’s findings, Emma Hockridge, Head of Policy at the Soil Association, said, “This groundbreaking research proves for the first time that people buying organic milk will be benefitting from the higher levels of beneficial fatty acids in organic milk through the whole year.”

Also worth noting was the greater consistency in quality seen between organic suppliers, whereas conventional milk was often found to be of varying quality.

“We were surprised to see obvious differences between the conventional brands, with the more expensive ones not necessarily better,” said Butler. “Some brands–which promote their suppliers as wholesome and grazing on fresh pastures–actually sold milk that appeared to be from very intensive farms.”

Butler offered that “the results suggest greater uniformity of feeding practice on farms supplying organic milk since there were no brands which differed consistently in fat composition.” She added, “This implies a fairly uniform approach to feeding practiced across these suppliers.”

In light of the growing worldwide obesity epidemic as well as other health concerns, Butler, while discussing her research, recommended that opting for organic milk could be a step in the right direction. “We’re always being told to cut down on the saturated fat we consume and switching to organic milk and dairy products provides a natural way to increase our intake of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, vitamins and antioxidants without increasing our intake of less desirable fatty acids,” said Butler.

She continued, “By choosing organic milk you can cut saturated fats by 30-50 percent and still get the same intake of beneficial fatty acids, as the omega-3 levels are higher but omega-6 is not, which helps to improve the crucial ratio between the two.”

The UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has yet to endorse the health benefits of organic milk as suggested by this study. The findings conflict with a prior statement delivered by the agency that organic milk could contain high levels of omega-3 fatty acids but that they were of “limited health benefit.”

In a more recent address, a spokesman for the UK Department of Health, stated, “There is some evidence that organic milk may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional milk. However, the types of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk are different to those found in oily fish. It is the omega-3 fatty acids in oily fish which have been shown to be beneficial in terms of heart disease.”

I heartily recommend downloading and reading the paper (it’s linked in the article).
Differences between years are as significant as differences measured between treatments – and these differences in milk composition are miniscule in the context of dietary behaviors of ordinary people.
The results of this organic-vs-conventional exhibition match are hair-splitting, at best, hardly justifies being charged twice the normal price in the grocery store.
How could such meager study differences be parlayed into such strong rhetoric (the authors even managed to work ‘climate change’ into their schtick!)? Ahhhh…the answer appears all the way at the end of the paper, tucked away discretely in the bottom lefthand corner – the disclosure of funding source for this little parody of a research project. Borderline junk science pandering to grant funding.

ecofoodologist

Doc Mudd,
I have not read the article, so I don’t have an opinion on your conclusion. But I have read several of your posts promoting the “cheaper is better” line. Some of your questions are good, your conclusions, not so clearly. The “cheaper is better” arguments usually result from junk science (or no science) pandering to grant funding. You are possibly aware that publicly traded corps. increasingly fund agricultural research in the USDA, land grant universities, and trade associations, some of whom make a mockery of peer review. You may be thrilled to learn that impending federal budget constraints will hand more research strings to BigAg.
If your Doc moniker means that you are a researcher, you know that one reliable way to ensure funding is to report what Monsanto, Altria or Cargil want to see in papers. Depending on your expertise, you may also know that forcing real, whole foods to compete at the GE, corn syrup, price point will bring a quick marketing victory for your “cheaper is better” campaign.
Who wins in the cheaper is better world, and what is their intent? As a consumer, you do not win. You will be bound to the GE pseudo-food alchemy as BigAg and BigBox experiment to see how much junk food you will purchase before joining the real food revival. The purchase data on your grocery store club card or credit card will show them your tolerance.
It’s great that you dig deeper, but providing science (using science budgets and science time frames), to refute advertising campaigns often takes longer than the funding lasts. Your delivery of the ad promotion for “cheaper is better” in this venue smacks of incredulity.
I want the price of healthy food to come down too, but more people buying it (including local and in season) builds the economy of scale. When you and I demand healthy food it will cease to be a fad, and junk food will abate in the market, removing the complaint that real food is too expensive. If you are having trouble coming up with money for quality food, (probably less than 10% of your income) you may consider taking on another job and selling your computer for some cash. Good food is worth it. ef

The organic milk was higher in an unhealthy fatty acid. The study found in particular myristic acid to be significantly higher in organic milk compared with conventional milk.
Also milk fat content was higher in the organic milk.
I have no opinion on organic verse conventional choose what you want. Choose what is better environmentally etc. However, do not choose based on facts that are hand picked out of a study. One needs to look at the whole study and even then wait for studies that can repeat the findings.

Every other study I’ve read says there are almost no testable differences.

I produce conventional milk on my farm and have 2 years of college behind this statement.
Conventional milk is the same as organic. The only people that benefit from the sale of organic milk are organic farmers. If the people are willing to pay more for the same product I say let them. I’m happy to see a farmer benefit from the Idiocy of the consumer.